Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

Hello Katody Matrass.

I'm sorry. It was a combination of Comodi, Massei and Maresca who asked Amanda about the reasons for not remembering the call. And that question may have been in transcripts read from the prison conversation of Amanda and her mother.

Thanks for the answer christianahannah!

It was indeed a combination and it is interesting to observe Comodi question after question pushing her version and not allowing Amanda to speak, then strengely losing interest exactly at the moment when she would have to clear the misunderstanding - from Amanda's answer it starts to be noticeable that Amanda thinks they're talking about some 12:00 call, and Amanda knows she was still at Raffaele's then. No wonder she is baffled.

It would be very serious if Comodi and members of the court conspired to push a false impression of the facts and put them forth in the record as evidence against Amanda. Do you know if the appeal addresses this?

I think they are some issues that cannot be touched by the appeals for the reasons that there is no way to prove them: Slapping on the head, question of purposeful planting of evidence or manipulating the lab results come to mind. (Not that I suggest any of that things happened or not!)
While when it comes to the trial questioning there are records still there is not much to gain here. Comodi versed herself in a purposefully ambiguous way to cover herself. (Compare the straightforward Maresca's question for which he received immediately a straightforward answer - something Comodi somehow coudn't or didn't want to achieve). But it is worth noting that Mignini apparently delegated Comodi to perform that risky action - after all Amanda's lawyers could have prepared her and make Mignini look like a fool.

I had read the transcript of Comodi questioning Amanda and Amanda's answers and never gave it more thought than Amanda had forgotten a call made to her mother. I am now questioning what more it could be.

Again, the most eye opening for me was to compare Comodi's way to the following Maresca's questions. In some way he inadvertently exposed Comodi's game.


I noticed katy_did explained everything very well again while I was laboring this post

Thanks and good night

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hello, Fulcanelli
Could you remind me what was the reason that there is absolute zero traces of Amanda in Meredith's room, on her body and belongings?

Sure, once you tell me why you're changing the subject and not addressing the point I was making which was in direct response to a comment made here.

Alternatively, you could continue to throw completely off-topic questions at people who make comments you find intimidating, just to change the subject...

 

[Fulcanelli]

So it isn't a trial de novo?

I think you have serious difficulty grasping exactly what it is and how it works. After all, you and your friends have only just begun to grasp the concept of what "calunnia" is. By the time you manage to understand how the appeal works the third degree will be over and done with. Therefore, all apologies, I won't waste my time trying to teach you.

 

[Chris C]

At trial, Filomena testified to seeing broken glass on top of her clothes. If you assume that the clothes were thrown on the floor by someone searching the room, this supposedly proves the window was broken after the room was searched. But if Filomena's left her clothes on the floor, it proves nothing.

There was also the opinion of an officer of the Posts and Telecommunications police who was first on the scene.

What I don't understand is how experience tracking down prank calls and stolen cell phones makes you an expert on staged burglaries.

Notice my question PROVED a staged break in. They never proved it.
Thats it, Filomena seeing glass on top of her cloths?
What about Filomena seeing glass under her clothes. Did she not also say there was glass underneath the same clothes?
What investigation was performed on the room to determine if it was or wasn't the point of entry for the murderer? Last I heard they only took 6 dna samples from the entire room and its contents, plus very few pictures.

After they decided they wanted to pursue a possible faked break in.
1. Did they go back to the scene to take more pictures or investigate the scene further?
2. Did they take more DNA samples?
3. Did they go down in the yard and sift through the grass and look for glass?
4. Did the investigators try and see if it was possible for someone to climb in that window. They already knew by this time Rudy stood accused of doing the same thing at another location.
Aren't these things a criminal investigator would do if he thought the break in was faked. After all an insurance investigator would have done these things if he thought it was faked.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Beautiful!

I love especially how Dr. Waterbury's observations about Rube Goldbergesque quality of the motivation converge with mine

And here is Waterbury displaying his legal and forensic talents:

Courtesy of PMF.

 

[Chris C]

"The same could be said about Comodi. Either she was lying or accidently giving the wrong time."

Not at all. There was no reason for her to do this. Mid Day, 12.00, 12.47. Everyone knew that this referred to a particular call. You can go on arguing forever, but it just distracting, as is most of the stuff here.

The defence will do their job, come the appeal. Armchair detectives mean nothing.

MC: What time is it at midday? What time is it in Seattle, if in Perugia it
is midday?

AK: In Seattle it's morning. It's a nine hour difference, so three in the
morning.

.........

GCM: Excuse me. You don't remember, but the pubblico ministero just pointed
out to you a phone call that your mother received in the night.

MC: At three o'clock at night.

GCM: So, it must have been true, it happened. Did you have the habit
of calling her at that time? Did it happen on other occasions? At midday
in Italy? At a time where in Seattle...people don't usually call each
other in the middle of the night.

AK: Yes, yes, of course.

GCM: So either you had a particular motive, or it was a habit.

AK: Yes. Well, since I don't remember this phone call, because I remember the
one I made later, but obviously I made that phone call. If I did that, it's
because I thought that I had something I had to tell her. Maybe I thought
right then that there was something strange, because at that moment, when I
went to Raffaele's place, I did think there was something strange, but I didn't
know what to think. But I really don't remember this phone call, so I can't
say for sure why. But I guess it was because I came home and the door was
open, and then --

MC: It's strange. You don't remember the phone call, but do you remember the
conversation with your mother in prison?

Regardless of whether Knox doesn't remember or is lying about this phone call. Comodi has the times wrong. They asked her what time it was at midday in Seattle Knox says 3, so then they accuse her of making a phone call at 3. Thats not true and to accuse her of anything for not remembering a phone call at 3 is wrong. If you make a phone call at 1247 and someone asked you what time you made a phone call, would you be more likely to say 12 or 1? The defense objected many times about how the prosecution worded their questions because they where adding false information to them. This is just one example of the Prosecution adding false information to questions they ask.

 

[Magister]

Appeals

According to this source appeal court hearings in Italy last on average 2 to 3 years.

http://www.usembassy.it/acs/emergency/emergency-arrest.asp

and here another source stating the appeal court process is a brand new trial

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php..._appeals_process_actually_works_and_what_we_/

 

[Chris C]

Sounds more like a blood glucose issue than a result of GERD. You could have some kind of reactive hypoglycemia going on. Anyway, you having GERD (as does most of the population in the U.S.) does not qualify you as an expert on the stomach contents of Meredith Kercher at the time of her murder.

How often you eat? I eat between 7 am and 8 am. By noon I'm hungry. Why am I hungry? Because my stomach is empty. Around 6 or 630, I eat again and right before bed I might have a snack. If my stomach doesn't start to empty in less than 5 hours how do I have room for more food. How are you even hungry.
Most people in a 12 hour period eat 3 meals. They wake up. Get dressed and fix something to eat. Go to work. Eat lunch. Sit around wait for 5pm, go home change, eat dinner. Watch tv. Sometimes have a snack and then go to bed. How often have you eaten a meal and then 5 or 6 hours later decided that you was still full? If it happened to you, how large was the meal?

 

[Dan O.]

<redacted>

 

[platonov]

In the case of JREF vs Comodi

In the case of JREF/FOA vs Comodi...... [a private action] on the heinous charge of telling lies!

Could the court be advised when the case for the prosecution will rest ??

Vey little (if any) 'evidence' has been produced and counsel is making speeches
[or in the opinion of the court - repeating the same speech]

.

 

[christianahannah]

Yes, great points.

I just don't see how it's possible to read that section of the transcript and come to the conclusion Comodi's focus is Amanda's forgetfulness. Her focus is clearly on the 'fact' Amanda had called her mother unnecessarily when "nothing had happened yet", thus implying she had advance knowledge of the crime. She even asks Amanda "why did you do it?" (i.e. call her mother): that's a question about motive, not memory. And Massei obviously understands this to be Comodi's point too, since he then follows up by asking "Did you have the habit of calling her at that time? Did it happen on other occasions?" He makes the point even more explicit in the sentencing report (even as the inclusion of the actual time of the call makes his argument nonsensical).

I too would be interested to read an argument that Comodi's focus was only on Amanda's forgetfulness, using the actual transcript of Comodi's questions.

I have had that said to me before, however, it doesn't change the perception of what I read.

Amanda is first asked by Comodi when did you first call your mother on November 2. No time has been stated by Comodi other than she wants to know the first call Amanda made to her mother. Amanda states the first call to her mother was right after the police had sent them all from the house upon the discovery of Meredith's body. From phone records that is not the first call Amanda made to her mother. Comodi, being a prosecutor is going to ask about that first call which is missing from Amanda's recollection.

MC: You said that you called your mother on the morning of Nov 2.

AK: Yes.

GM: When did you call her for the first time? (This may be a typo and is MC rather than GM).

AK: The first time was right away after they had sent us out of the house. I
was like this [probably mimes shaking], I sat on the ground, and I called
my mother.

Do you think that the call might not have been brought up if there had not been a recorded conversation about it between Amanda and her mother on November 10?

Do you know if there any media articles which reported on Comodi's purposely ambiguous, risky action, and plan to push a falsehood in questioning Amanda about her first call to her mother?

 

[Chris C]

My personal view (as I've said before) is that the bath mat print cannot be matched definitively to anyone - including Sollecito and Guede. I think the best identification that can be made with any certainty is that it was made by an adult male with a foot size corresponding approximately with a shoe size of 40-48 (Euro sizes). Although, of those two people, I'd suggest that Guede's foot matches the bath mat print in more respects than Sollecito's (but I don't think it should be used as evidence against Guede either).

I believe that the whole "science" of this sort of footprint evaluation has been thoroughly debunked. It belongs in the same file as graphology or polygraph testing, as unverifiable pseudo-science, which should hot be put before a court of law as hard evidence.

I agree, the footprint should have been allowed in as evidence of the crime scene. But trying to match it to a foot is something out of one of those CSI tv shows. I also agree it matches guede's foot better than sollecito's but it shouldn't be allowed as evidence against Guede either. Unless of course you can pull a dna sample that matches either person.

 

[Chris C]

Yes, based on the fact that AK decided to bear false witness against Lumumba, it seems AK was willing to do whatever she had to in order to pin the blame on someone else and keep the police on the wrong track. (Staging the B&E was only the tip of the iceberg.)

You could also say.
The fact that the Prosecution would slander Knox in the press or withhold evidence, including using a prosecutor that was charged with abuse of office, they would do whatever it takes to earn a conviction.

 

[Chris C]

I could be wrong but the slander case is not a criminal case but a civil case raised by the Perugian Flying Squad officers against Amanda and her parents; can anyone confirm?

The one against the parents is like a traffic ticket.
The one aainst Knox is more serious.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...) The defense objected many times about how the prosecution worded their questions because they where adding false information to them. This is just one example of the Prosecution adding false information to questions they ask.

And could you show us those objections? I think it is not true. The defence never objected that the prosecution added false information to the questions, they did not state the prosecution added false information - nor as absolute statement nor in a way limited to a specific topic - fore sure they did not state this kind of objection "many times".
It would be, after all, irrelevant if they made such objection, meaning that it would be ok and regular: the evidence is formed by the debate, not by the wording of the prosecution.
But in the actual case, the defence did not express the objection of "false information" as you claim.
Even on this point the defence did not object to Comodi's question.

 

[Chris C]

Hi Chris C,
Thanks for reposting the photgraph I had asked about!
Now what I would really luv to see and watch would be a debate with Piktor about this bloody footprint,
since Piktor has also, on another website, posted a photographic comparison of the feet of Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito in relation to the bloody footprint.

Come on, Piktor, please do post your photographs here too and then join us for a debate here on JREF to discuss a direct comparison to what both you and Chris C have drawn and posted!

Hope to see this happen soon,
RWVBWL

The most common response I see from guilters about the footprint in the bathroom was it couldn't have been made by Guede because he left the room, then left the apartment. However even Guede admits that he went into the room, found Meredith bleeding, goes to the very bathroom where the bloody footprint is, grabs towels and then goes back to meredith. So in all actually he has entered and left that room twice.
Plus he also tells the police that he was in every room in the house looking for a burglar.

 

[treehorn]

And more seriously - Amanda's fine for loud party and Raffaele's replying to Popovic "in cold tone" are stellar reasons for appeal. Convicted criminal (as platonov calls him) Mignini really have outdone himself.

A fine for a "loud party"?!

I checked out the public record, online, at the Seattle Municpal Court's website.

It was a conviction for "Residential Disturbance."

The provision under which Knox was charged allows for a penalty of up to 180 days in jail.

If the police had received a second call from frightened neighbors and motorists that evening, Knox would have been facing that penalty.

The citation was police-issued, to Knox and Knox alone (none of the other partygoers were charged), and included a warning, to Knox, about rock throwing (at passing cars).

Have you read the article in the Daily Mail?

[Knox has sued other reporters/ publishers in respect of far less damaging stories, but she's never sued the Daily Mail for their account of the rock throwing incident. We're almost 3 years down the road and the Daily Mail has never been forced to retract a word of it. My guess: the story is true and, as a result, Knox has no ground to sue for damages and a retraction.]

How on earth do you reduce the range of antisocial conduct described in that article as being limited to "loud music"?!

I'm an aging frat boy and have witnessed my share of police action at parties run amok, but I've never- ever- seen the police charge a woman. Never even heard of it! It would be an understatement to say it's "highly unusual."

I think this is one of the indications that Knox was far from 'well-adjusted'/ symptom-free before she left for Europe.

 

[Chris C]

Then you should be equally stunned at the mitigation granted by the court, since the prosecution appeal is aimed solely at the reasons for that mitigation and they have a case in stating there is undue leniency.

For example...do you buy that Amanda and Raffaele showed genuine remorse for what they'd done by their actions during the staging?

Do you dispute that Meredith's murder took place for anything other then trivial reasons?

Do you dispute that Meredith's murder was aggravated?

If the answer is no, then it is in accord with the prosecution and that is the basis of their appeal.

And to properly answer this question, you need to put aside your all out faith that Amanda is innocent, in contrast to the view of not only the prosecution but the court. You need to answer it from their perspective. If Amanda and Raffaele, along with Rudy murdered Meredith what are the answers to those questions? For those answers decide what sentence they actually should receive.

The defence may have grounds for their appeal...but so do the prosecution.

And if Knox or Sollecito never committed the crime:
These apply to them how?

For example...do you buy that Fulcanelli showed genuine remorse for what they'd done by their actions during the staging?

I could plug anyones name in there and say that exact same thing. However, if Knox or Sollecito didn't commit the crime. Then they wouldn't be showing remorse for a crime they didn't commit by staging a crime they never staged.

 

[platonov]

Perplexity & Temporal anomalies

Originally Posted by Dan O.

---------------

Edda is perplexed because she was told her daughter called before anything had happened. Amanda is perplexed because the first call she remembers was 47 minutes later after lots of things happened. Comodi is the liar that caused this.

-----------------------

Thanks Dan O.

The hypothesis that the lie about a "call before anything had happened" was planted as early as 10 Nov 2007 fits the picture and is coherent with what Machiavelli wrote about ILE tactics of deceit.

.......................
.............................
...................................

We have another temporal anomaly here OR The conspiracy has got wider ; Edda is involved.

Have we evidence that Comodi got to Edda before she spoke to AK on Nov 10.

If not why did she pretend to be perplexed - is she in on it ??

.

 

[Justinian2]

Less than 25%. Even if we accept the prosecution's lurid fantasies, the situations and dynamics are fundamentally dissimilar.

As for comparisons between Knox and Ellard, well, they are both females. That's pretty much were the similarities end.

It is simply an ignorant and/or incompetent argument to claim there is a strong correlation between Knox and Kelly Ellard. Ellard has been a vicious person since childhood and has a long history of violent outbursts and attacks. For example, while she was out on bail awaiting trial on the luring and murder of Renna Virk, she was arrested for luring an elderly woman to a park one evening, where Ellard and one of her punk friends beat the hell out of the woman.

That true believers in Knox's guilt can not come up with a single example of an uncontroversially proven case that would parallel the conspiracy that Knox and her boyfriend were supposedly part of, should give any sensible person reason to question their guilt.

Very plausible.